screen_stocks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond purpose—it does not mention default behavior when no filters are provided, pagination, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is sufficient as a high-level summary. It could mention default behavior or explicit alternatives, but the structured data carries the necessary detail for a complex screening tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. The schema itself richly documents filters, operators, markets, sorting, and limits.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Screen'), a specific resource ('stocks'), and the criteria type ('fundamental and technical criteria'). It also states the outcome ('Returns stocks matching the specified filters'), and the resource 'stocks' distinguishes it from sibling tools like screen_forex, screen_crypto, and screen_etf.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for stock screening but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as screen_etf or screen_forex. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions, so guidance is only implicit through the word 'stocks'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.